RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Harriet Lewis Date of Order: 2019-12-20 Tribunal File Number: 12097/LLA Case Name: 2625593 Ontario Ltd. O/A Bonita Restaurant, Registrar under the Alcohol, Cannabis and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996
Written Submissions by:
For the Applicant: Larissa Chappel, Appellant Jorden Kolman, Agent
For the Respondent: Tamara Brooks, Counsel Danielle Bastarache, Counsel
OVERVIEW
1The Applicant’s request for reconsideration arises out of motion made by the Applicant asking that the Tribunal hear an appeal of a Notice of Proposal to deny the transfer of a liquor licence to the Applicant.
2The issue that was before the Tribunal in the motion was whether it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the Registrar’ Notice of Proposal denying a transfer of a licence from Malcolm Wilson (“Wilson”) to Larissa Chappell (the “Applicant’), the owner of Bonita and its sole shareholder, officer, and director. The Tribunal found that the licence in question had been revoked and the Notice of Proposal to deny the transfer of the licence to the Applicant had been withdrawn by the Registrar.
3The Tribunal concluded in its decision released on September 27, 2019 that there being no outstanding Notice of Proposal to deny the transfer of the licence to the Applicant, it has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the proposal. The Tribunal’s determinations are summarized at paragraph 22 its September 27, 2019 decision denying the motion:
When Wilson failed to appeal the proposal to revoke the Bonita Licence, the Registrar revoked the licence as it was entitled to do under the Act. Once the licence was revoked, there was no longer a licence that could be transferred, I find that because there is no licence to be transferred, and no proposal to refuse the transfer, there can be no appeal of the refusal to transfer. The Registrar has advised Chappell that she is entitled to apply afresh for a.
4Applicant is seeking reconsideration of the decision on the grounds that Applicant has been discriminated against and that the decision of the Tribunal was outside of its jurisdiction, that it made an error of law or fact, that the decision is unfair, discriminatory, harassing and an abuse of law and process, and that the Tribunal heard false evidence from the Respondent which was discovered after the hearing.
5The Applicant is asking for the reconsideration of the decision and that an order be made:
a. Varying the Tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction b. Allowing the hearing of an appeal of the Registrar’s decision.
6Pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 5, I have been delegated responsibility to decide this matter in accordance with the applicable rules of the Tribunal.
RESULT
7A reconsideration request is not an opportunity to argue an appeal in circumstances where the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the first instance. The Applicant's request for reconsideration.is denied.
ANALYSIS
8The grounds for reconsideration are contained in Rule 18.2 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure. A request for reconsideration will not be granted unless one or more of the following criteria are met:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of natural justice or procedural fairness; b) The Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision; c) The Tribunal heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the result; or
9The grounds that the Applicant argues applies to this case is as follows:
Procedural Fairness/Error of Law
10The Applicant argues that the Tribunal’s decision violated the laws of natural justice and procedural fairness and that it “lacked merit, reason logic or complete analysis of the facts, applicable law or the submissions of the Applicant”. The request for reconsideration states that the Applicant’s submissions were “strong and unchallengeable” but “completely ignored by the adjudicator who is mandated to protect the public from tyranny of governmental authority being misused and abused”.
11The Applicant’s argument for reconsideration rests on the assertion that the Tribunal did not consider the whole of the evidence put forward in the Notice of Appeal or in support of the motion. This included evidence contained in the Notice of Proposal to deny a transfer of a licence to the Applicant and the Notice of Appeal of that proposal. However, as was explained in the September 27, 2019 decision, it was not the task of the Tribunal on the motion to hear or adjudicate on the evidence in the appeal documents either supporting or contradicting the decision of the Registrar. The sole purpose of motion was to determine whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s appeal of the Notice of Proposal given that there was no proposal from which to appeal. Having found that it lacked any jurisdiction as the Registrar had withdrawn the Notice of Proposal to deny the transfer of the license, the motion had to be denied.
12The relevant evidence before the Tribunal on the motion was that the liquor licence underlying the transfer to the Applicant had been revoked and that the Notice of Proposal to deny the continued transfer of the revoked licence to the Applicant had therefore been withdrawn. That evidence was not disputed by the Applicant:
13The Applicant misunderstands the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. As is noted in the Motion Decision issued September 27, 2019, the powers of this Tribunal are established by s. 3(1) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O. 100 c.12, Sched G: “The Tribunal shall hold the hearings and perform the other duties that are assigned to it by or under any Act or Regulation “. In this case the authority of the Tribunal to hear an appeal is limited to circumstances in which there is a proposal from the Registrar to deny the transfer of a licence. Having revoked the underlying licence, the Registrar withdrew the proposal to deny the transfer to the Applicant. With no proposal to appeal, the Tribunal lost its jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the actions of the Registrar on their merits.
14I do not agree that the Tribunal violated natural justice and procedural fairness or made an error in law in the interpretation of its jurisdiction. Procedural fairness is concerned with ensuring that parties have access to a fair procedure. The Applicant is arguing that the result on the motion is unfair because it was not the result sought, and the merits of the case on appeal were not going to be heard. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited by the wording of the governing statute. The fact that the Tribunal lacks the jurisdiction to issue the decision sought by the Applicant does nor render its procedures unfair or violate the rules of natural justice,
False Evidence from a Party or Witness/New Evidence
15In the request for reconsideration, the Applicant alleges that the Respondents made negligent misrepresentations and provided false evidence in materials filed with the motion on jurisdiction.
16Although material relating to the basis of the Registrar’s proposal and the Applicant’s appeal were filed for the motion, the Tribunal did not consider any evidence relating to the merits of the Registrar’s decisions to revoke the underlying licence or to deny the transfer of a licence to the Applicant. As noted, the facts relevant to the motion were not in dispute, that is, that the Registrar had revoked the original licence and had withdrawn the proposal forming the basis of the Applicant’s appeal.
17I therefore cannot find that the Tribunal heard false evidence on the motion.
CONCLUSION
18For the reasons noted above, I deny the Applicant's request for reconsideration.
Harriet Lewis, Adjudicator Tribunals Ontario - Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Division
Released: December 19, 2019